Errata Kalis Fang??

Nictuku wrote:

maybe this forum and the posts in it can start a debate about the rulings, game balance and make the game better. id like to ask all of you to post what kind of singularity you have noticed in the game, such as this melee weapon issue. Maybe some other things come up, so the inner circle can think about some errata or slightly modifications about the rules, cards.

most of my ideas tend to get shot down in a chorus of "the game is just fine as it is!" or "we can't change anything, that will confuse new players!" for the most part, the community here is profoundly reticent to any kind of grand and sweeping change to the game. Granted, some changes would require a mass errata of many cards, so I completely understand and respect that viewpoint.

However, with the game in a torpid state, I don't see how discussing ways to streamline some of the more unwieldy bits and doing some work on not only the engine of the game, but bringing the game in line with the more modern V20 background is a bad thing (holy sentence parsing, batman!). Indeed, having a plan for the future and a re-launch for the game may be beneficial to our efforts to get the game back in print. I've actually been slowly working on a plan of some ideas to revitalize the game, but my interest in working on it waxes and wanes

i know, its almost impossible to make those changes, but if u never try, or never ask, the answer is always no, thats my philosophy. I know this game has a future, and I'm happy to hear there a plans to make the game back in print. Probably that is most important goal we want to achieve.

self wrote:

most of my ideas tend to get shot down in a chorus of "the game is just fine as it is!" or "we can't change anything, that will confuse new players!"

You want to streamline the game, but you object to people saying that things will confuse new players? The two are very, very strongly linked. The fact that V:TES has a truck of a rulebook with a multitude of mechanical cul-de-sacs in it is a huge disincentive for new players. Adding yet another special case for guns or melee weapons or whatever is another element to that.

Additional to that, all changes have a cost in terms of impact on existing players and impact on returning players. At the extreme end, few people really want to ban cards just for the hell of it(*) because it disrupts things for existing players, potentially killing the favourite decks of various players - but it's sometimes necessary for the greater good. Neutering gun decks outright could have a similar effect. Similarly, for returning players, making significant disruptive changes raises the barrier for return - knowing that (at random) the scarce Bloodlines have been made a bit better, that Quietus can cope with S:CE, that Anarchs are great defensively etc. is a lot less to learn (and the sort of change endemic to all CCGs) than finding that fundamental mechanics have been rewritten all over the place.

This is not "Everything is fine." But change has cost. Improving the environment for particular mechanics by creating new cards can be potentially disruptive to the environment without adding a truck of new rules for people to learn. Any player - new, returning, or forgetful - can pick up the card, read it, and understand, and not have to remember yet more cardless rules.

Cardless rules are particularly annoying when they trigger off a little-used keyword and your opponent has to understand the difference. Knowing that a card is a "gun" is mostly irrelevant for game purposes, except for the person playing it - who can choose to use ammo cards that require a gun, or can use Suppressing Fire that requires a gun etc. Me having to know that gun has some weird corner case meanings regarding how much damage it can do in which circumstances is annoying as hell for many players.



(*) There have been a few players who've suggested banning a clutch of cards as, essentially, a form of set rotation. These 20 cards (probably popular cards) have been banned, rebuild your decks.

self wrote:

However, with the game in a torpid state, I don't see how discussing ways to streamline some of the more unwieldy bits and doing some work on not only the engine of the game,

Suggesting that guns can't use additional strikes or that guns gain one extra damage per additional strike (rather than their full strike) is the exact opposite of streamlining - it's adding another rule.



On a more general note: (most) melee weapons are bad. But several other combat strategies are fairly competitive with each other, such as Potence with Immortal Grapple vs Guns. Melee weapons largely aren't played because they're not as good. If you nerf guns via some new rule, you won't have done a single thing to make melee weapons more useful against Carrion Crows, weenie Fortitude, or whatever else. So there's a strong chance you'll make the game's rules appear more complicated while having the practical effect of simply eliminating gun decks from the game.

re: guns I am in no way suggesting that a rule be placed in the rulebook saying something to the effect of Guns can't use additional strikes. i probably wasn't clear as to how I would do it, but i'd change, say, Assault rifle to read: "Strike: 4R once each round. Strike: 1R each strike. Optional Maneuver." or something far more elegant when it comes to formatting and templating, and apply that Errata to ALL GUNS. I wholly concede that mass errata also isn't the greatest thing in the world, either.

I also think that Cold Iron Vulnerability should go away. have Poker... and those three other cards that are Cold Iron be Errata'd to say they do Aggravated damage to Kyasid vampires, and just delete the relevant text from draeven softfoot.

I have more to add, but we're going pretty far off topic here. I'll make another thread over the weekend and discuss things further.

self wrote:

I also think that Cold Iron Vulnerability should go away. have Poker... and those three other cards that are Cold Iron be Errata'd to say they do Aggravated damage to Kyasid vampires, and just delete the relevant text from draeven softfoot.

Cold Iron Vulnerability is indeed not really a disadvantage at all.

Then again, IF we ever get the game rolling again AND happen to get the Print on Demand IT WOULD be possible to change majority of Melee Weapons, such as Bastard Sword etc, to having the Cold iron keyword. IF the rule team deemed it necessary.

Heck, no one uses such melee weapons (well, the !Salubri do butusually Walking Sticks are what they seem to use) so it wouldn't really change anything.


Not holding my breath...